Places like NYC and Philly are thousands of miles away from Berlin, Germany, and Nice, France. However, it may well be that the anti-Trump protesters in New York City, Philadelphia and other US towns have heard of a terrorist attack in Berlin that occurred on December 19, 2016. The perpetrator was a gentleman from Tunisia, who had been arrested a few times and condemned in absentia in his homeland. In 2011, he arrived in the unwalled Island of Lampedusa, Italy. Later, he was held in an Italian jail and graciously allowed to go free in 2015 because the Tunisian authorities (very wisely) refused to get him back. Then, this jolly good fellow moved to Germany (from where, again, it was impossible to send him to Tunisia) and, in full agreement with the socially advanced European regulations, he could fly around as free as a bird.

Similarly, even the Clinton supporters who live in New York and Philadelphia might have knowledge of the terrorist attack in Nice (July 14, 2016). Interestingly enough, also the gentleman who killed almost a hundred people in Nice was a Tunisian national, but with a French residency permit.

Although I am fully aware that any comment about the potential threat posed by asylum seekers or alleged asylum seekers is not in accordance with any politically correct agenda, I firmly believe that some caution should be exercised and I fully agree with the metaphor used by Donald Trump Jr some time ago: "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?" And let me say it clearly: I totally reject the politically correct idea that immigrants should not be compared to Skittles. After all, it's just a metaphor! More importantly, if Donald Trump Jr is to be chastised for his metaphor, we should tear the pages of the Gospels, in which human beings are compared to sheep and, even worse, God is downgraded to a shepherd! Actually, I don't think that the progressive world would be happy if refugees were labeled as sheep—therefore, if the progressive establishment does not accept metaphors, it should definitely condemn the Gospels!

That said, it's a pity that the concept of conditional terrorist attack does not exist. Indeed, it would be fair if the non-populist citizens and politicians were allowed to take their responsibility—it would be fair if terrorist attacks like the ones that took place in New York or Boston or Paris or London or Madrid or Istanbul or Mumbai or many more cities only hit people who would not mind taking a handful of potentially lethal skittles...

Next, there's the problem of the wall. Of course, the politically correct people and institutions are against a barrier between Mexico and the US. For instance, an enlightened statesman like Hassan Rohani (president of a country where religious minorities are often persecuted) was quick to react—and it's quite natural: he wants his would-be martyrs and Hezbollah friends to freely move all over the world. And don't forget: they already have the nuisance of the Israeli barrier. So, it goes without saying that they are against any wall in any part of the world. Incidentally, a learned politician like Rohani could not miss the opportunity to make an analogy with the Berlin Wall. Of course, he forgot to point out that the Berlin Wall was built to cage people, while the wall planned by Trump (as well as the Israeli West Bank barrier) is aimed at defending/protecting people.

To put it in a different way, note that Trump's Wall would be an obstacle for illegal immigrants. Therefore, all the charlatans who oppose that wall in the name of supreme values should openly state that, in their opinion, illegal immigration is not a crime. In consequence they should, first of all, make an effort to change the law. More specifically, they should fight to abolish all immigration controls, because there is no reason to bother passengers disembarking at JFK or LAX, while the people coming from Mexico should be allowed to cross the border through the Sonora Desert instead of going through customs—again, in the name of supreme values and with the noble purpose of avoiding discrimination.
[NOTICE: the last comment is probably very naive, since immigrants first is the slogan of the most progressive nations, as proved by an European country where some 1,000 euros were allocated each month to house each immigrant, while 200 euros (with a maximum allowance of 600 euros per family) were allocated each month to help each resident whose home had been damaged or destroyed by an earthquake which had struck that country]

While talking about the most progressive sentiments toward immigrants, refugees and asylum seeker, I would like to mention another open minded statesman: François Hollande. In the name of the highest ideals (i.e., European ideals), he urged Europe to provide a firm response to US President Donald Trump after his immigration ban. According to President Hollande, it is necessary to promote European standards and safeguard the European way of life. Apparently, he even dared to say: "When he [President Trump] refuses the arrival of refugees, while Europe has done its duty, we have to respond." Note that France is a country that did not allow immigrants to cross the southern part of the French-Italian border, when hundreds of asylum seekers were forced to camp in the Italian town of Ventimiglia and never saw their dreams come true.

Similar remarks apply when we consider the reaction of the politically correct British establishment and non-populist population. Isn't it true that the Leave Campaign was fueled by the failure of the United Kingdom to deal with an overwhelming number of refugees? Isn't it true that the United Kingdom made use of the Channel as if it were a kind of Trump's Wall, creating well-known problems in the so-called Calais Jungle in France? Isn't it true that the United Kingdom is not happy with the fate of the famed ISIS' British brides in Syria, especially after the death of Kadiza Sultana? Isn't this a perfect example of discrimination? Would the Britons make all that fuss if some women decided to marry Danish or Saudi or German or Pakistani citizens and live in their countries?

Some have also claimed that President Trump intentionally chose to ban citizens from seven countries where he had no business. Frankly speaking, I think he really chose those countries by taking into account the warnings issued by the previous Administration. Actually, if he had embraced the slogan business first, he should have never attempted any act against any Muslim country, because it was quite obvious that the Islamic world would react. Instead, what he did clearly shows that he believed in the slogan America first, and his priority was not to sell cars or coffee or computers. Thanks to his executive order, President Trump has also sent a message to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, which might come to the conclusion that it is high time to stop financing Salafi mosques and self-proclaimed cultural centers.

Finally, I would like to quote a few sentences from Jihad Al-Kuffar (Chapter 6). According to the story, a radical militant is talking to a fellow fighter in October 2000 and appreciates the sympathetic attitude of the Western world:

Third-worldists are so eager to gather new voters or new converts that they don’t even think about the side effects of their guidelines. They don’t mind that many immigrants are in perfect harmony with the mujahideen and will always be hard-line followers of ancient traditions. Allah willing, there are plenty of militants who move to Western countries, aspire to establish a new caliphate, are blessed with high birthrates, and are prepared to impose our laws at every available opportunity, as soon as a region is filled with a good number of believers. The history of Kosovo, Chechnya, Lebanon, and Zamfara, in Northern Nigeria, will be repeated; the future is ours. And we already walk toward dazzling horizons of glory in the Darfur Region of Sudan.

COMMENTS

Remark by Jeremy S.H., NC on 02/19/2017 at 10:53:22 PMSubject: Sweden and Donald Trump
Content: By now, it is more than clear that Sweden is facing huge problems due to the immigrants. "No-go zones" do exist. Recently, Siv Jensen, Finance Minister of Norway, has even stated: "We won't end up like no-go zone Sweden". Of course, no one cares. Although Siv Jensen is a conservative, the politically correct populist media do not want to make a case for her statement. It is far better to pretend that the Great Satan (=Donald Trump) is a lone fanatic who believes that something is rotten in the State of Sweden. They prefer to ignore the opinions of other politically incorrect politicians. The stakes are high: if newspapers and news networks talk too much about politicians and leaders who agree with Trump, it may well be that some politically correct citizens and voters start to believe that the US President might have some reason to focus on immigrants (and Sweden and other issues). So, there is a serious risk that they eventually become politically incorrect.

Remark by Jan S., CZ on 02//02/2017 at 08:51:27 AM
Subject: Conditional Human RightsContent: It's amazing how the United Nations and Muslim countries always take a stand to defend the so-called human rights when Israel or a non-Obama US administration is involved, but have never cared about freedom of religion in Iran or Saudi Arabia, indiscriminate attacks on the Kurds, terrorist activities in Lebanon or Pakistan, state-sponsored terrorism in Iran or Syria (since the time of Hafiz al-Assad).